Monday, September 22, 2008

Self-determination

Self-determination is defined as free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion, and especially as the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state. The latter is a complex concept with conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.

History


Pre-20th Century


Just as colonisation and colonialism have been practiced throughout human history, political self-determination has been cherished by people through history, the ancient Mesopotamian and later being early examples.

During the early 1800s most of the nations of South America achieved . The American public, organized groups and even Congressional resolutions, often supported such movements, especially the Greek War of Independence and the . However, such support never became official government policy. After the American Civil War the United States government opposed self-determination for the West Indian islands of and in 1868, the in 1868. By the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1899 the United States supported its annexation without the consent of the peoples the former Spanish colonies of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines; it retained “quasi-suzerainty” over Cuba.) The 1918 acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.

During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of decolonization. In the the Great Britain granted independence to Canada, New Zealand, , the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa after the British parliament declared itself as incapable of passing laws over them without their consent. Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq also achieved independence from Britain and Lebanon from France. Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the Indian independence movement. And Italy, Japan and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring new territories under their control, leading to World War II.

The UN Charter



In 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six nations signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at then end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.
*Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
*Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . Both read: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
*The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, nations were recognized by the legal doctrine of uti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international
boundaries upon independence, even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries. Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, the peoples of thirty-seven new nations freed themselves from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many nations and challenges to the assumption that territorial integrity is as important as self-determination. The international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and often dictated more by politics than principle. The year 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration failed to deal with these new demands, mentioning only “the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation.”

In an issue of Macquarie University Law Journal Associate professor Aleksandar Pavkovic and Senior Lecturer Peter Radan outlined current legal and political issues in self-determination. These include:

Defining “peoples”


There is not yet a recognized legal definition of “peoples” in international law. Vita Gudeleviciute of Vytautas Magnus University Law School, reviewing international law and UN resolutions, finds in cases of non-self-governing peoples and foreign military occupation “a people” is the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. In cases where people lack representation by a state’s government, the unrepresented become a separate people. Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples.

Constitutional law


Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.

In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of majority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession through constitutional amendment. The in Texas v White, held secession could occur “through consent of the States.” The in 1933 held that Western Australia only could secede from Australia upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient. before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.

International law


Given the hundreds of minority groups seeking greater autonomy and even full secession into a new state, there is need for a new understanding of the right to self-determination that applies to minority national groups and indigenous populations. At the very least this would encourage states to these groups more internal self-determination to deter secessionist demands.

Taiwan




Taiwan is the focus of a self-determination dispute in the East Asia region. The government of the People's Republic of China claims the entirety of Taiwan as its territory. However, Taiwanese independence advocates argue that there is no legal claim to Taiwan, as no legally binding treaty ever transferred sovereignty to China following World War II, an assertion that both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China disagree with. At the same time, the ''de facto'' government of Taiwan, the Republic of China still has not formally withdrawn its claims to the mainland and several other areas. In practice, however, this claim essentially died off through the 1990s and is no longer pressed by Taiwan's elected government.

Turkish Cypriots



Since 1974, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a state recognized by Turkey only, has been governing the northern part of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot community claimed a right of self-determination in ending their partnership with the Greek Cypriots in the Republic of Cyprus.

United States



The colonization of the North American continent and its population has been the source of legal battles since the early 1800s. Surviving Native American were resettled to separate tracts of land which have been given a certain degree of autonomy within the United States federal government.

The Chicano Movement seeks to recreate Aztlán, the mythical homeland of the Aztecs comprising the Southwestern United States which is home to the majority of Mexican Americans. They include those of mixed Native American and Latino descent . They base their claim on the fact that the U.S. seized the territory as a result of the Mexican-American War

There is an active Hawaiian sovereignty movement which aims at rectifying the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in the late 19th century which resulted in the incorporation of Hawai'i into the United States.

Since 1972, the U.N. Decolonization Committee has called for Puerto Rico's decolonization and for the U.S. to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. In 2007 the Decolonization Subcommittee called for the United Nations General Assembly to review the political status of Puerto Rico, a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution. This follows the 1967 passage of a plebiscite Act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continued commonwealth, statehood, and independence. In the first plebscite the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes but U.S. congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998 the status quo was upheld.

Many current U.S. use the language of self-determination. A 2008 poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."

Books


* Allen Buchanan, ''Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law '', Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.
* Annalisa Zinn, ''Globalization and Self-Determination '', Taylor & Francis, 2007.
* Marc Weller, ''Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution '', Taylor & Francis, 2007.
* Valpy Fitzgerald, Frances Stewart, Rajesh Venugopal , ''Globalization, Violent Conflict and Self-Determination,'' Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
* Joanne Barker , ''Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination'', University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
* David Raic, ''Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination '', , 2002.
* Y.N. Kly and D. Kly, ''In pursuit of The Right to Self-determination'', Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination & the United Nations, Geneva 2000, G E N E V A 2000, preface by Richard Falk, Clarity Press, 2001.
* Antonio Cassese, ''Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal '', Cambridge University Press, 1999.
* Percy Lehning, ''Theories of Secession,'' Routledge, 1998.
* Hurst Hannum, ''Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights'', University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.

1 comment:

RONBOTHUNTER said...

WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPPOSES YOUR RIGHT TO BE FREE!!

Puerto Ricans, whether they are called Independents (independentistas), Patriots or Nationalists or Freemen, who desire to be free, must always know that the federal government, here in the States has no “subject matter jurisdiction” over the person, case or location and should be challenged to proof it. These are magic words to learn when in Federal Court for desiring freedom for your/our Country.

You won’t be told this in court but: All jury members, judges, attorneys, and employees working in federal court, must reside in federal territory to legally be a federal juror or touch your case or they can be commercially sued, disbarred and financially ruined for violating your constitutional rights etc.

Your God given right to be free is not wanted by the USA, it will oppose your desire for independence and freedom, because the Federal USA is a profit based Corporation.

The Federal Government is a District of Columbia “Corporation”, as are all the States of the USA. What you know of as the USA, is NOT a Republic, but a multi-based Corporation acting as a Country. These Corporations were formed for the benefit of the real owners. Since June of 1933, everything since then, is under Contract law or commercial law, aka Admiralty law, to benefit your masters in power.

The Federal Government owns Puerto Rico as an ASSET, because it is a slave colony—whether you like the idea or not. But the Federal Government takes orders from those who own and run this (Corporation) Country, but are not of this country. The International Bankers, who really own the corporations called the USA and also the Federal Reserve, will let the slaves of PR be free, only if enough real men of Boricua blood wish to be free, by reserving their rights under the Constitution. Their books will be adjusted and we will be free.

The answer to your freedom lies in your Constitutional rights --- To win --You must always reserve your constitutional, commercial rights and know what they are and how to do so.

A Puerto Rican without a desire for independence and/or freedom from alien control has no heart and soul of a man.

The fact that the public does not know that we are NOT free, makes no difference, to the desire to be free. The PR that wants Statehood is a Gringito, who has no soul of a man left in his traitor's heart. Freedom is happening all over the world and yet we allow Gringitos to kill our right to be free.

A Gringito is a non-Anglo THING, IT is not really a “person”, just like a mass murderer is more like an animal than a person, who internally is so inferior, that he desires to be what he can not be—thus Gringito means little gringo.

The Gringito is like an Uncle Tom to blacks or a collaborator and traitor to many others. To us he/she is all three and much worst. The “It or thing” I call Gringito, is the enemy of freedom -- all thru out HUMAN history.

We allow the Alien Invaders to kill, harm, abuse, rape, and scam us and yet the Gringito wants to give our Country away.

This abuse must end. No man or woman is a real Man or real woman who is too scared to fight for their souls and be free. If you listen to the Gringito, you will lose your soul.

Thru out eternity, humanity owes its freedom from slavery, ONLY TO BRAVE SOULS who fought and DIED for your right to be free.

The fight will NOT succeed if you don't fight the Gringito enemy/traitor/collaborator at home first. He is there next door and claims he is a real man and tries to give you many excuses of why PR can't be a free Country.

To give away your/our/my Country is not a right of alien invaders, visitors or foreigners with NO Puerto Rican Blood.

The right to vote on THIS ISSUE should NOT be given to NON-Puerto Ricans.

The fight for the independence of Puerto Rico is now non-violent and will be won in the hearts of real men around the World.

The Ronbothunter,

A proud freedom loving Puerto Rican.

All Rights Reserved